In re previous letter you may discern I am in some distress. I see no way out of this dilemma. I will try to explain in terms you can understand. Forget what you know. You are incorrect. You’ll have to follow me on faith alone. I may need to teach you enough of how the mind works to pull me out of a funk. It will have to be by rote. should take about 10 minutes. Just trust me.

I want to talk about cognitive ability. In a normal (I have refrained from using that word, it is distressing, but true) intelligence is measured by the IQ test. Mine was measured at 161 I would guess yours in that ball park. But the IQ test ignores the part of the mind that makes us human. It assumes we are super chimps, the only difference being the number of neural cells. WRONG!!! I want to introduce the SQ test (SNAP quotient Synchronous Neural Access Potential). Lets transfer the results of the IQ test over to the new scale so as to accurately measure overall conative ability. While yours is still about 161 mine is 200m300? I don’t know, it’s off the scale. This has nothing to do with how the brain is made. Mine is no different than yours, other than the obvious. The problem is that a normal”s thinking patterns are flawed, meaning that a normal cannot reach his true potential. As long as I keep the logic paths short, I can communicate effectively. Anything more spins off into irrelevancies. There is a bug in the wetware. Whether this is inherent or introduced, I don’t know. I am probably the only person on earth capable of resolving this issue, I don’t even know if it’s possible. And I don’t have much time. And I can’t communicate this because the people who I try to communicate with have flawed logic patterns. In my case this potential has been realized, in yours it hasn’t. What a waste, we could have been to the stars 2 million years ago. It is tragic.

You think backwards

Perhaps intelligence is an evolutionary dead end and it is all for the best.

I have a very simple problem. Any attempts to explain it rapidly devolve into irrelevant complexities.

Short Form

The problem is: I live in a world in which reality doesn’t matter <stop>

How do I deal with it?<end>

Communication is futile

Long Form

Since people like to put things in little baskets so that they can make believe they know what’s going on, I’ll put the posed question on abstraction in little baskets. I’ll make 3 baskets. Call them A,B,C. Since I don’t know how many psychologists there are I’ll pick a number say 20,000. I’ll put them in basket A. If I’m going to be abstract about psychologists, they’re idiots. I’ll take another basket (a tiny, miniscule basket) and scoop out some of of these psychologists. One of these psychologists is Dr. B. This basket I will call non-idiots. (how many, I don’t know. 500 is probably wildly optimistic, I only know of 2) I will pick one marble. Teresa. This marble is indeterminate, unique, out of the 6 billion people there is only one. So I take this Teresa marble over to a football stadium sized basket (C) and give it a fling. The mere concept that you can be abstract about a singularity is absurd. It’s a conundrum, oxymoronic (heavy on the moron) in the extreme. A terminal logic fail. Even then all you could say is that she’s human. Probably female because of her name. That’s about it. And I don’t even know this hypothetical persons name. I couldn’t even find her. I couldn’t even find basket A, much less B. To think that one can reverse engineer the problems, aspirations, life history, etc. of a singularity goes past silly , past dumb, past stupid past idiot it is insanity. It’s like dividing a number by 0. Here be dragons. To hear a thought like that come out of the mouth of any person is disturbing. To hear it come from a person I like who is an expert in the mental sciences, intelligent, compassionate, sincere, educated, centered, someone I would rate in the top 5% in terms of smartness and more importantly, someone I like, scares the shit out of me. It is mind-boggling. And I have a high boggle threshold. Ayn Rand is right, there is indeed an “empty, ravening beast devouring the minds of humanity” That’s why I don’t like to deal with people. It is painful to see what people do to themselves.

It is distressing to know that someone I like has self-mutilated her mind.

In my terms you are not an idiot, you are not an asshole. You are locked. What is the English word for that? How do I explain to someone? The words don’t exist. English doesn’t work. Psycho babble is worse, it obfuscates truth in meaningless blabbity-blo. German maybe, Sanskrit, Aramaic, Hokien, Swahili? Math would work. The chaos equations would describe the phenomenom. Even then people would pontificate on the profundity of the math, and expand on it, and claim to understand it. But they would not. The math is not the concept, the math would only describe the concept, but that would be close enough. But the fickle finger of fate has destined that I was born too early and Mandelbrot too late. In like manner Ayn Rand.

It is interesting to note that Ayn Rand, with a typical female viewpoint, views herself as being locked in a room with the beast, while I, with a typical male viewpoint, view myself in a room surrounded by the abyss. Whichever name you choose, it is evil.

In answer to your query on how I kept my “spark”, As I mentioned I was educated by Benedictine Monks, an order dedicated to education. Catholics believe that religion doesn’t belong in education, it’s a seperate issue. Religion is between the individual and God. And a church is only a place for the individual to have a quiet place where he can commune with God. Probably half the students at Menard were non-catholic, with blacks, jews and others. As a result my education was secular. It was heavy on “lab” in chemistry we would spend half an hour talking about an experiment, then a half hour doing it. Instruction was held in the lab. In language (Latin for me), we would learn in the first half, then speak it in the second half. In the second semister Latin was taught in Latin. One thing that was hammered home was “WE CAN’T TEACH YOU, WE CAN ONLY SHOW YOU HOW TO LEARN”. It was up to us to learn. The student’s job was to learn, the instructors job was to present the data. Tests were mostly composition, The understood question on every test was “why”. An explanation of our answer was to be appended at the end of every paper. Many of the maxims I learned, I still use. For instance, on writing a paper “Tell them what you’re going to tell them, then tell them, then tell them what you told them”. and “A word means what it means, no more, no less”. We were free to explore the topic in any direction we chose. The more creative, the better. We chose the course (direction) for our education. Targeted (dis-ambiguated) words were encouraged “Lore” for instance, or heraldic. When a word has multiple meanings, I append the definition I intend. I still do it. I learned this in HS. I still proof my writing for ambiguation. This is where words fail me, there are no words in English that accurately describe the concepts in my head. I’ve included a of couple links on a modern Benedictine Monk, check his bonifides, it may supprise you. What a unique education, how at odds with public education. A new avenue of exploration. I shall contact Bro Hicks with a question on Benedictine Educational Philosophy.

Another reason is I’m confrontational by nature. If someone tries to slap me down, I slap back.

I put my model for how the mind works on one page. WOW!!! Try explaining that in English or Psycho-babble.

Understand that psychology, is only a small part of my interest, which I suppose could be loosely described as man’s relationship with the universe (so far, it may change) I am at present dipping into the psychology basket to further my understanding. My model representation is to be considered only a tool I use to satisfy my particular needs, specifically, to understand the TMI Block and more generally why people put things in baskets making the data difficult to retrieve. The hole in the soul concept came from the spirituality basket. The taboo came from the zoology basket. The QD Fix came from the anthropology basket. The wolf came from the finance basket. The beast came from the ethics basket. Why must there be baskets when discussing human nature? None of these things make sense without considering the others. The illogical contortions you have to go through without considering all the data is monumental. All of the data is there, it’s just in different baskets.

Consider the following logic train;

Germans drink more beer than Americans or English and have less heart attacks

French drink more wine than Americans or English and have less heart attacks

Japanese drink more saki than Americans or English and have less heart attacks

Conclusion; Speaking English causes heart attacks

Saki, Wine and Beer are in different baskets and so not considered

It is insanity. It is self mutilation. This insanity exists in each of the soft baskets. It takes someone who is unlocked to skip across these baskets and pull out the relevant data. It takes someone who is centered to restore reason within each basket. Idiots and assholes just screw things up.

And we haven’t even discussed the commons, justice, education, parenting, values and others I haven’t thought of..

So far I’ve figured out the following aspects of the beast

Who=Everyone has it

What=Rejection of facts and logic

How=Algorithms field forbidden data

When=Neolithic earliest known instances

Where=Soft Sciences

Why=Taboo on pride

During the invasion of Iraq, Bill O’reilly asked a tank commander if there was anything the troops needed. After pondering for a minute the commander responded “mo’ enemy”. That’s what I got.